Bryan said:
S Foote. said:
Complete bulls**t Bryan!!
You answered all these points yourself in that thread started by Maneless i quoted above! People will note how you have avoided commenting on your obvious hypocrisy here!!
I ignored that rubbish before because it was so ridiculous I didn't even want to dignify it with an answer.
[quote="S Foote.":84dcf]In that thread you made it `VERY' clear that you agreed with me when it came to the interpretation of macaque studies compared to humans!
You said that the results in macaques didn't mean `ANYTHING' relating to human male pattern baldness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Which is just what i have said in this thread!
No, Stephen. If only you had the wit to understand the SUBTLETIES of what I say to both you and maneless (BTW, he chooses not to capitalize his handle, for some reason or other). What I said to maneless is that just because stumptailed macaques get DENSE REGROWTH from antiandrogenic treatment, that doesn't mean that humans will, too. I've been telling people for the last 10 years that you do NOT get full regrowth just by removing androgens. That's in no way inconsistent or incompatible with what I've been beating into YOUR head, which is that androgens DO directly affect hair follicles, and topical antiandrogens DO help maintain and provide benefit to human hair follicles, although not to the exceptional degree that they do in macaques.
S Foote. said:
Here's yet another example of your hypocrisy!
Maneless claimed in that thread that the RU58841 macaque hair loss study, was a good model of human hair loss, and you replied quote:
"No, this is the stuff that regrows a fair amount of hair in *stumptail macaques*, not humans.
Bryan"
Exactly. What I said to BOTH of you is correct. Let me explain it to you in a slightly different way: you and maneless both have weird, extremist views on hairloss that are at completely OPPOSITE ends of a spectrum. YOU think that androgens have no direct effect at all on hair follicles, while maneless was convinced that if you reduce androgens enough inside the hair follicle, every last missing strand of your hair will grow back completely.
BOTH of you are completely nuts! :lol: However, _I_ am the one who has the CORRECT position, and it's a reasonable middle ground: androgens definitely have a direct effect on hair, but even removing them completely from a scalp that's been balding for a while rarely ever completely regrows all the missing hair. It's mostly a one-way street. And it's sad and pathetic if the best you can do is point to something I said to maneless in the past about HIS extreme position, and try to twist that into sounding like I support YOUR extreme position. Stephen, there's an old saying that "the Devil is in the details". You need to start paying attention to the details, the nuances, and the subtleties.[/quote:84dcf]
Sorry Bryan, but your word `games' can't cover up your blatent hypocrisy , and deliberate distortions. You are just insulting the intelligence of the forum members if you expect them to believe you haven't done a complete `U' turn here!!
There are no `nuances' or `subtleties' in the written record Bryan, so just own up to what everyone here can read for themselves!! To re-cap:
In this thread in response to the quoted macaque studies, i said:
"S Foote. wrote:
Just in case you haven't noticed Bryan, `WE' are `humans', well some of us anyway."
You said:
"ROTFLMAO!! Is that all you're going to say, Stephen? Just imply that stumptailed macaques are completely different in the way that they bald, compared to humans? Despite the fact that they respond the same way to drugs like minoxidil, diazoxide, and finasteride, and that that's why they are widely used as an animal model for human balding?"
In the `Maneless' thread, Maneless said:
"Also, the macaque is the univerally accepted animal model for human male baldness. The macaques are the animals that the drug companies test their drugs on to determine what will happen in male human bladness. But I guess Bryan knows more than the drug companies."
`YOU' replied:
"Maneless, you've GOT to be putting me on!! You seriously think that drug companies believe that whatever happens with a macaque, will automatically be true for humans?? Find me a medical citation for this remarkable claim!
"
Which is the complete opposite of your response to me above!!
Just admit that you have been caught out Bryan, and that your `scientific principles' change depending on how much attention you think you can get in particular debates!
That's pretty sad by most peoples standards.
I have stated my opinion on why topical anti-androgens can have `some' local effect. This is because of a `wider' penetration into the tissue. According to my theory these need to get into the local lymphatic system, which is a perfectly reasonable proposition.
Dr Proctor was quite clear that in that quoted instance, that the `topical' anti-androgen achieved its effects by a `systematic' action.
You can think whatever you like Bryan, but your word `games' don't fool people on these forums like you think they do :wink:
S Foote.